HV 5090 
■ M4 C8 

Copy 1 



PROHIBITION was a 

FAILURE in Massachusetts 
in 1867 

Is History about to 

repeat itself 

in 1922 

P 



PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 

BOSTON 

1922 



Copyright, 1922 

BY 

Joseph Henry Curtis 
Boston, Mass. 



©CU683828 

A*» j 



^ 






THE FAILURE OF PROHIBITION as depicted by 
EX-GOVERNOR JOHN A. ANDREW when he 

DELIVERED HIS ARGUMENT ON THE ERRORS OF PRO- 
HIBITION in the Representatives' Hall, Boston, 
April 3, 1867. 

The result of the State election, which occurred the fol- 
lowing November, completely revolutionized the policy of 
Massachusetts, and eventually substituted License for 
Prohibition. 

Fifty years or more had passed away when under the 
influence of war and by doubtful methods Prohibition was 
placed in the United States Constitution, and for the past 
two years or more has been on trial. It is a failure and 
bids fair to start another revolution which will first defeat 
the enforcement act, requiring State authorities to join with 
Federal authorities to enforce the Volstead Act ; second, will 
modify the Act and ultimately bring about the repeal of 
the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment. 

Written by one who participated as a young man in the 
1867 Campaign and now is watching day by day the storm 
brewing in 1922. 

Joseph Henry Curtis. 



Otis Norcross was inaugurated Mayor of Boston, January 
8, 1867, and in his address advocated a License Law in the 
following language: — 

"The evils resulting from the use of intoxicating drinks 
have strongly attracted the attention of the people through 
many years and led to various expedients for their erad- 
ication. 

"It always has a demoralizing effect to have laws upon 
the Statute Book which are not and cannot be executed. 
Experience has shown, after years of effort, that the Act 
prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to be served as 
a beverage belongs in that category. In this, as in most 
other moral reforms, the people must be educated to an 
advanced position; they cannot be driven to it by force. 
It is the path of wisdom to deal w T ith facts as we find them; 
if we cannot wholly prevent an evil, we should do what w^e 
can to mitigate it. 

"A license law, not impracticable, but reasonable, in its 
provisions, with penalties so severe, and capable of sum- 
mary infliction, as to insure obedience, and placing the traffic 
only in the hands of persons who can be held responsible, 
criminally and pecuniarily, to observe its requirements, 
would, in my judgment, be the most effective means which 
can be adopted for the correction of the great and growing 
evils of intemperance." 

License was in the air; Prohibition was thoroughly dis- 
credited; fraud and corruption w^ere in evidence everywhere. 

In the winter of 1867 a movement was made against 
the state prohibitory law on a scale quite beyond anything 
which had yet been attempted. Petitions bearing the 
names of upwards of thirty thousand legal voters were 
presented to the Legislature, praying for the enactment 
of a judicious license law; counter-petitions followed on 
their heels. 



A committee consisting of the proprietor of the Parker 
House and other innkeepers in Boston invited Andrew, 
without making any conditions whatsoever, to manage the 
case before the proper committee. Such an opportunity 
to attack the prohibitory law was all that he could have 
hoped for. He accepted the case, and for three months 
devoted all his time to managing the hearings and to pre- 
paring the final argument. Of course, in so identifying 
himself with the "rumsellers," his eyes were wide open. 
He knew how sharply and at what a peculiar angle the line 
of cleavage on this question went through the whole 
structure of New England society, and he knew that his 
action in becoming chief advocate against the established 
order of things might alienate from him almost any personal 
friend or body of supporters. Moreover, it exposed him 
to attacks, not only upon his honesty of motive, but upon 
his personal habits, 1 from a body of men whose inordinate 
zeal made them none too scrupulous in this connection. 

The prospect of such attacks, as well as their probable 
effect on his political future, moved him not a whit. He was 
keenly interested in making a thorough study of the ques- 
tion and in presenting the real issue to the people for free 
discussion as it had never been presented before, — indeed, he 
declared afterwards that "in all his life, public and private, 
there was not a single act which afforded him more internal 
satisfaction than this attack." 

The hearings lasted for six weeks, during which time 
there appeared for the petitioners alone "more than one 
hundred witnesses, from all quarters of the Commonwealth," 
"of nearly all' professions and callings." 2 As the testimony 
went on from week to week, the audience increased so that 
it became necessary to hold the sessions in the Representa- 
tives' Hall. 

1 "He was fond of wine and used it freely, but always with temperance; 
and he despised, from the bottom of his heart, the prevailing hypocrisy 
as to its use." — "Sketch of the Official Life of John A. Andrew," by Albert 
G. Browne, Jr., p. 58. 

2 "The Errors of Prohibition, an Argument delivered in the Repre- 
sentatives' Hall, Boston, April 3, 1867," by John A. Andrew, p. 147. 



My interest was so keen that I put aside business and 
attended every hearing. Although fifty-five years ago, my 
recollection of the evidence and appearance of the wit- 
nesses is almost as vivid as if it were yesterday. 

To refresh my memory, I have looked over the daily files 
of the Advertiser of that period, and I select the following: — 

Ex-Governor Washburn believed that the license of the 
sale of liquor was licensing a moral evil, but that the evil 
would be diminished. 

Ex-Governor Clifford believed that the prohibitory law 
was not favorable to the morals of the community. 

Mayor Norcross stated that his views were expressed in 
his inaugural address. He believed that liquor dealers 
should be allowed to serve on juries. 

Mayor Lewis of Roxbury and Ex-Mayor Russell of Cam- 
bridge believed that prohibitory law did not accomplish its 
object. 

Ex-Mayor George C. Richardson believed that the pro- 
hibitory law could not be enforced. 

Ex-Mayor Lincoln believed that a prohibitory law could 
not be enforced. 

Ex-Mayor Wightman favored license. 

Rev. John B. Robinson, a city missionary, from his own 
observation believed that a prohibitory law was imprac- 
ticable. 

Rev. Father Taylor, in Boston fifty years, clergyman forty- 
five years, field of labor in the North End, had never seen 
anything worthy of the dignity of the law in prohibition. 

Rev. W. R. Alger thought that legislation which regu- 
lated the habits of the people was not in accordance with 
the spirit and genius of democratic institutions; believed 
that a license law properly administered would improve 
the quality of liquor. 

Rev. Dr. Lothrop was in favor of a license law, and con- 
sidered that no law in its effects could be worse than the 
present one. 

Rev. Dr. Hedge said he deemed the prohibitory law 
a mistaken act of legislation ; that its effect had been morally 
evil, as it induced hypocrisy and concealment. 



Rev. Dr. Peabody of Harvard said that at one time he 
had been in favor of prohibitory legislation, but had now 
come to the conclusion that it had done little good and much 
harm. 

Professor Bowen of Harvard stated that in his opinion 
the prohibitory law was inoperative for good and operative 
for evil. 

Rev. Dr. Blagden stated that under prohibition there 
might be total abstinence, but there could not be temper- 
ance. 

Rev. Dr. Adams had lived in the city thirty-three years 
a temperance man, but not a total-abstinence one. 

Rev. Dr. Lambert of Charlestown believed that the pro- 
hibitory law was against the genius of our institutions. 

Rev. Mr. Love joy said he considered that he had no right 
to dictate to another man what he should eat or drink. 
He considered the law not only unwise, but wicked, and a 
stigma upon the State. 

Right Rev. Manton Eastburn, Bishop of the Episcopal 
Church, believed intemperance was increasing; was op- 
posed to the prohibitory law, on principle; did not believe 
in total abstinence as a universal principle, for the reason 
that what was bad for some was good for others. Such 
liquors as whiskey and brandy he would not use except in 
case of sickness or necessity; the latter case he would leave 
to the judgment of the individual rather than the Legis- 
lature. To judge what manner of man this outspoken 
Bishop was, let Phillips Brooks testify. He writes in the 
Memorial History of Boston a history of the Episcopal 
Church, in which he describes Bishop Eastburn, and says 
in 1861 the war broke out and for the next four years the 
country was in the struggle with rebellion. It is good to 
find that from the Bishop's chair there came no hesitating 
utterances of loyalty. In his Convention address in 1861 
Bishop Eastburn denounces the "nefarious rebellion," in 
1862 he congratulates the Convention on the success with 
which thus far a gracious Providence has crowned the 
Armies of the Union, in 1863 he rejoices over the " loyal 
utterances of the late General Convention," in 1864 his 



Convention address " bespeaks sympathy for the wounded 
thousands among our soldiers and among the legions of 
our misguided enemies," and at last in 1865 "he rejoices 
over the sight of a most wicked rebellion defeated." Such 
words are full of the positiveness which belonged to Bishop 
Eastburn's character, and which made him for so many 
years a powerful element in the diocese over which he 
presided and in the city where he lived. He held to his 
convictions with most unquestioning faithfulness and strove 
with all his might to impress them on his congregation and 
on the church. His long ministry at Trinity Church will 
always be remembered; and when he resigned his rector- 
ship in 1868 he carried with him the love of many and the 
respect of all. 

Rev. James A. Healey, Rev. George F. Harlan, Rev. 
Father Strain, Rev. I. B. O. Hogan, and Rev. Michael Hart- 
ness, of the Roman Catholic Church, were for license, and 
considered the prohibitory law a failure. 

Hon. George B. Upton said he considered all prohibitory 
laws as bad. 

Hon. Joel Parker, Law Professor for half a century, did 
not believe in the enforcement of the prohibitory law. 

Hon. George S. Hillard did not think a prohibitory law 
as desirable as a license law to cure intemperance. 

Hon. Henry W. Paine thought it was because the pro- 
hibitory law was inefficient that it had been tolerated. 
The majority of the people believed the moderate use of 
liquor to be beneficial. 

Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes testified that alcohol as a 
dietetic was stimulating. 

Dr. Henry J. Bigelow said as a rule physicians did not 
abstain from wine. In regard to the drinking practice of 
society he did not think they were to be deplored. He 
thought that in cases where an individual was obliged to 
exert himself, being already in an exhausted condition, 
stimulus was not sinful and on the whole beneficial. 

Hon. Francis B. Fay of Lancaster said he had no doubt 
that the prohibitory law, or any other law of a like descrip- 
tion, had an immoral tendency. 



6 



Col. John Quincy Adams considered it preposterous to 
suppose that the liquor traffic could be suppressed. 

I was especially interested in the testimony of Rev. Dr. 
George E. Ellis. 

Dr. Ellis was vice-president of the Massachusetts His- 
torical Society and contributed three of the ablest articles 
in the Memorial Histor}^ of Boston; viz., 'The Puritan 
Commonwealth/' "The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts," 
and " The Royal Governors of Massachusetts." He was 
Professor of Theology at the Divinity School at Cambridge, 
and no man stood higher in his day in the estimation of the 
citizens of Boston. 

Dr. Ellis stated he was inclined to the opinion that all 
efforts to coerce men in private habits made them more 
determined to continue the practices assailed. He felt he 
had a right to obtain liquor in case of sickness, and should 
exercise that right, notwithstanding all laws, state or na- 
tional. Dr. Ellis said on cross-examination that law could 
never take the place of conscience, that it could not reach 
the root of evil, and that the best influence was in the family. 
On being asked if he did not feel bound to obey a law which 
had been pronounced constitutional by the highest legal 
authority, the witness replied that he would rather incur the 
penalties of some laws than obey them. 

Another witness I was especially interested in was Rev. 
Dr. Worcester, who was instrumental in introducing the 
doctrines of Swedenborg into this country. There was a 
small colony of them when I was a boy in the town of 
Waltham, where I lived, and we used to regard them as 
the salt of the earth. 

Dr. Worcester testified that he had been in Boston forty- 
six years as a clergyman and had become convinced from 
his observation that a coercive law was impracticable. He 
said he knew nothing in the Old or the New Testament 
which counselled prohibitory legislation, and he did not 
think it was in harmony with the gospel. 

But the witness above all others that I was most anxious 
to see and hear was Prof. Louis Agassiz. As a lad at Wal- 
tham, it was my good fortune to be under the pastorate of 



Rev. Thomas Hill, afterwards president of Harvard College. 
Thomas Hill was a warm personal friend of Professor 
Agassiz, a nature lover, and had a wonderful gift of inter- 
esting the young in the stories of what he had personally 
observed, interwoven with those of Agassiz, and though I 
had never met or seen Professor Agassiz, I felt far from 
being a stranger to him. I was delighted with his appear- 
ance, all and more than I had imagined, — a his magnetism," 
his " genial countenance," "his great face beaming with 
pleasure," " brimful of lusty blood as ever ran, and taking 
life as simply as a tree." 1 

I drank in every word he said in his broken English. His 
testimony was as follows: He had been in this country 
twenty years, but was a native of Switzerland. He said 
that wine-making was the principal branch of agriculture; 
wine was the usual beverage, and consequently a part of 
the alimentation of the people. Concerning the effects of 
its use, he said that a more cheerful and temperate peasantry 
than that of Switzerland could not be found. He said he 
hailed with joy the effort in cultivating grapes in this coun- 
try, as the best means of making a temperance population. 
He expressed amazement at the interference of the Govern- 
ment with the modes of living of the people. 

What follows is largely taken from the Life of John A. 
Andrew, by Henry Greenleaf Pearson, and Sketch of the 
Official Life of Governor Andrew, by Albert G. Browne, Jr., 
Military Secretary to Governor Andrew during the war. 

Andrew had from the beginning, in his examination of 
the witnesses, based his attack broadly, after his fashion, 
on the contrast between the opposing principles of the two 
parties, — a method which, with the tremendous momentum 
that he knew how to give a case, presently seemed to be 
carrying all before it. The prohibitionists, finding them- 
selves driven to the wall, grew desperate, and Dr. Miner, 
the clergyman who had charge of their case, snatched at 
the convenient weapon of personal abuse. Naturally, as 
the time drew near for the final argument to be made, public 

1 "Louis Agassiz," bv Alice Bache Gould. 



8 



interest was at fever heat, and on the day set for Andrew's 
final plea admission could be procured to the Representa- 
tives' Hall only by ticket. 

Dr. A. A. Miner, the counsel for the remonstrants, was as 
different in appearance from Ex-Governor John A. Andrew 
as he was in character. He was tall and angular, and a 
typical representative of the narrow-minded Calvinist on 
which had been grafted a scheme of salvation which em- 
braced all mankind except the moderate drinker. 

No nobler type of man ever walked the legislative halls 
of Massachusetts than John A. Andrew, the first citizen of 
Massachusetts in the affection of the people. In mature 
life he still retained many of the traits of the rosy, chub- 
faced boy that he was at Bowdoin College. 

Before leaving his own apartment for the Council Chamber 
the Governor was accustomed to retreat from visitors into 
a little intermediate room, where he partook of a simple 
lunch, generally of only bread and cheese with a cup of tea. 
Dr. Johnson was not a more devoted lover of tea. He held 
to the theory that it is a positive nourisher of nervous force, 
and always was ready to drink it at any time of day or 
night. 

Simple in all his diet, although, like almost all busy pro- 
fessional men, a hearty and rapid eater, he enjoyed and ap- 
preciated the pleasures of the table, for he was a thoroughly 
developed man in all the elements of manhood, physical 
as well as intellectual and moral. 

In his great argument against the principle of a prohibi- 
tory liquor law, made in the winter of 1867 before a com- 
mittee of the Legislature, while reciting the causes which 
combined to increase the perils of New Englanders from 
drunkenness, besides "sl hard climate, much exposure, 
few amusements, a sense of care and responsibility culti- 
vated intensely, and the prevalence of ascetic and gloomy 
theories of life, duty, and Providence," he enumerates 
also "the absence of light, cheering beverages, little variety 
in food, and great want of culinary skill." He was fond 



9 

of wine and used it freely, but always with temperance; 
and he despised, from the bottom of his heart, the prevail- 
ing hypocrisy as to its use. No one respected more the 
discretion of the individual who should abstain from it, 
either for fear of being tempted beyond self-control, or for 
example to others in danger; but he demanded equal 
respect for his own discretion. 

Believing that law has of itself no reforming power, that 
it may punish and terrify but cannot convert, he attacked 
the doctrine of prohibitory legislation at its root. 

"It is," he argued, "only in the strife and actual contro- 
versy of life — natural, human, .and free — that robust virtue 
can be attained, or positive good accomplished. It is only 
in similar freedom alike from bondage and pupilage, alike 
from the prohibitions of artificial legislation on the one 
hand, and superstitious fears on the other, that nations or 
peoples can become thrifty, happy, and great. Will you 
venture to adhere to the effete blunders of antiquated despot- 
isms, in the hope of serving, by legal force, the moral wel- 
fare of your posterity? Will you insist on the dogma that, 
even if certain gifts of nature or science are not poisons, 
they are nevertheless so dangerously seductive that no 
virtue can be trusted to resist them? But when society 
shall have intrusted the keeping of its virtue to the criminal 
laws, who will guaranty your success in the experiment, 
tried by so many nations and ages, resulting always in 
failure and defeat? Do you exclaim, that the permitted 
sale of these beverages, followed as it must be by some use, 
must be followed, in turn, by some drunkenness; and that 
drunkenness is not only the parent cause of nearly all our 
social woes, but that it is impossible to maintain against 
its ravages a successful moral war? To both these proposi- 
tions, moral philosophy, human experience, and history, 
all command a respectful dissent. 

"Reason, experience, and history all unite to prove that, 
while drunkenness lies in near relations with poverty and 
other miseries, and is very often their proximate cause, it 
is not true that it is the parent, or essential cause, without 
which they would not have been. And to the teachings 



10 



of reason, experience, and history, are added the promises 
of Gospel Grace, enabling me in all boldness to confront 
the fears of those who would rest the hopes of humanity 
on the commandments of men." 

" Drunkenness was naturally one of the forms which vice 
assumed in New England. So far as it depended on the 
mere fact of opportunity for indulgence, it was partly due 
to our nearness to the West Indies, and to the trade by 
which our lumber was exchanged for their molasses. The 
peculiar product of our distillation was the result of the 
lumber trade with the West India Islands, just as the pro- 
duction of whiskey is now the result of the superabundant 
grain crops of the Western States. A hard climate, much 
exposure, little variety in food, and great want of culinary 
skill, few amusements, the absence of light, cheering bever- 
ages, a sense of care and responsibility cultivated intensely, 
and the prevalence of ascetic and gloomy theories of life, 
duty, and Providence — have, in time past, all combined to 
increase the perils of the people from the seductive narcotic. 
A man whose virtue was weak, or whose discouragements 
were great, or whose burdens were heavy, or in whom the 
spirit waged unequal war with the allurements of the flesh; 
or even one in whom a certain native gayety strove with 
the unwelcome exactions of the elders, was often easily its 
victim. Independence, intelligence, self-respect, broader 
views, kinder and tenderer sympathies, the cultivation of 
the finer tastes, the love and appreciation of beauty, a truer 
humanity, — not to speak of better social theories, — all made 
more general and pervading in our society, have gradually, 
by divine favor, been made instrumental in the deliver- 
ance of our people from that bondage. I have not men- 
tioned a greater conscientiousness in the catalogue of causes, 
for I do not believe that conscientiousness has ever been 
greater than in New England, or that it is greater now than 
it was in other times. It was a characteristic of New 
England from the first. It was always a source of great- 
ness in her people. But it has been often morbid and even 
superstitious. 

"The evil of drunkenness needed to be met by a gracious 



11 



Gospel kindling the heart, not by a crushing sense of guilt 
goading the conscience. The temperance reformation 
sprang up out of the heart of a deeply moved humanity. 
It was truly and genuinely a Gospel work. It was a mis- 
sion of love and hope. And the power with which it wrought 
was the evidence of its inspiration. While it held fast by 
its original simplicity, while it pleaded, with the self-forget- 
fulness of Gospel discipleship, and sought out with the 
generosity of an all-embracing charity, while it twined it- 
self around the heart-strings and quietly persuaded the 
erring, or with an honest boldness rebuked without anger, — 
it was strong in the Lord and in the power of his might, 
verifying the prophecy of old, that one might chase a thou- 
sand and two put ten thousand to flight. But when it passed 
out of the hands of its Evangelists and passed into the hands 
of the centurions and the hirelings; when it became a part 
of the capital of political speculation, and went into the 
jugglery of the caucus; when men voted to lay abstinence as 
a burden on their neighbors, while they felt no duty of such 
abstinence themselves (even under the laws of their own 
creation); when the Gospel, the Christian Church, and the 
ministers of religion were yoked to the car of a political 
triumph; then it became the victim of one of the most 
ancient and most dangerous of all the delusions of history." 

In all his life, public and private, there was not a single 
act which afforded him more internal satisfaction than this 
attack. The subject had been with him one of earnest 
thought and clear conviction for many years; but for fear 
of dividing the people on a local question when they should 
be united on the great national issues, he abstained from 
presenting it to the Legislature until after the war. The 
result of the state election that occurred the week after his 
death, completely revolutionizing the policy of Massa- 
chusetts on the question, and vindicating his position, was 
a proof of the sagacity with which he foresaw the verdict 
of the people on a theory of legislation which only one year 
before it required high moral courage even to challenge. 



12 

Andrew had from the beginning, in his examination of 
the witnesses, based his attack broadly, after his fashion, 
on the contrast between the opposing principles of the 
two parties, — a method which, with the tremendous momen- 
tum that he knew how to give a case, presently seemed to 
be carrying all before it. The prohibitionists, finding them- 
selves driven to the wall, grew desperate, and Dr. Miner, 
who had charge of their case, snatched at the convenient 
weapon of personal abuse. 

The following extracts from Dr. Miner's speech, delivered 
the day preceding that on which Governor Andrew gave 
his masterful address, furnish some notion of his style of 
argument : — 

"Remember the theory of the Romish and of the Epis- 
copal Church, a theory that outlaws the state, and claims 
everything for the clergy, and which seems to dominate 
over the consciences of men, even at the Friday dinner 
table, and are you surprised to find them opposed to the 
Law? . . . 

"If I am to define a license, stringent or otherwise, en- 
grafted upon our present law or standing alone, I would 
say that it is a legal means of recruiting the army of drunk- 
ards with the approbation of ex-Governors of the Common- 
wealth, whiskey-drinking priests, and members of Harvard 
Medical College." 

Ex-Governor John A. Andrew delivered his great argu- 
ment on "The Errors of Prohibition" in the Representa- 
tives' Hall, April 3, 1867. I was early on hand and obtained 
a seat in the gallery. 

Defining the two points of theory on which the prohibi- 
tionists rested their case as "the essentially poisonous char- 
acter of alcoholic beverages" and "the immorality of their 
use," Andrew devoted himself to overthrowing every argu- 
ment that could be brought to support these propositions. 
Under the first head he recapitulated in an exhaustive man- 
ner the testimony of eminent physicians and men of author- 
ity in science. Under the second head he attacked all the 
moral arguments which have been used in behalf of prohi- 
bition. He massed evidence to show that drunkenness is 



13 



not a cause of degradation and crime, but a concomitant; 
he opposed vigorously the principle of sumptuary legisla- 
tion; he dwelt on the demoralizing effect upon the com- 
munity of a law in which a large and important body of 
people did not believe; he matched and reinterpreted the 
Scripture texts quoted by his opponents; upon the rights 
of individuals to personal liberty he quoted from John 
Stuart Mill's "On Liberty":— 

"Under the name of preventing intemperance, the people of 
one English colony, and of nearly half the United States, have 
been interdicted by law from making any use whatever of fer- 
mented drinks, except for medical purposes: for prohibition of 
their sale is in fact, as it is intended to be, prohibition of their use. 
And though the impracticability of executing the law has caused 
its repeal in several of the States which had adopted it, including 
the one from which it derives its name, an attempt has notwith- 
standing been commenced, and is prosecuted with considerable 
zeal by many of the professed philanthropists, to agitate for a 
similar law in this country. The association, or 'Alliance' as it 
terms itself, which has been formed for this purpose, has acquired 
some notoriety through the publicity given to a correspondence 
between its Secretary and one of the very few English public men 
who hold that a politician's opinions ought to be founded on 
principles. Lord Stanley's share in this correspondence is cal- 
culated to strengthen the hopes already built on him, by those 
who know how rare such qualities as are manifested in some of 
his public appearances, unhappily are among those who figure in 
political life. The organ of the Alliance, who would 'deeply 
deplore the recognition of any principle which could be wrested 
to justify bigotry and persecution,' undertakes to point out the 
'broad and impassable barrier' which divides such principles from 
those of the association. 'All matters relating to thought, opinion, 
conscience, appear to me,' he says, 'to be without the sphere of 
legislation; all pertaining to social act, habit, relation, subject 
only to a discretionary power vested in the State itself, and not 
in the individual, to be within it.' No mention is made of a third 
class, different from either of these, viz. acts and habits which are 
not social, but individual; although it is to this class, surely, that 
the act of drinking fermented liquors belongs. Selling fermented 
liquors, however, is trading, and trading is a social act. But the 
infringement complained of is not on the liberty of the seller, but • 



14 



on that of the buyer and consumer; since the State might just as 
well forbid him to drink wine, as purposely make it impossible 
for him to obtain it. The Secretary, however, says, 'I claim, as 
a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded 
by the social act of another.' And now for the definition of these 
'social rights.' 'If anything invades my social rights, certainly 
the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my primary right of 
security, by constantly creating and stimulating social disorder. 
It invades my right of equality, by deriving a profit from the crea- 
tion of a misery, I am taxed to support. It impedes my right 
to free moral and intellectual development, b}^ surrounding my 
path with dangers, and by weakening and demoralizing society, 
from which I have a right to claim mutual aid and intercourse.' 
A theory of 'social rights,' the like of which probably never before 
found its way into distinct language — being nothing short of 
this — that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that 
every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he 
ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, 
violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the 
legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle 
is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; 
there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it ac- 
knowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to 
that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: 
for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious, passes any 
one's lips, it invades all fhe 'social rights' attributed to me by the 
Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest 
in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, 
to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard." * 

In the words of John Quincy Adams whose austere virtue 
and greatness made him for years the representative states- 
man of New England, uttered in addressing the Temperance 
Society of Norfolk County: "Forget not [I pray you] the 
right of personal freedom. . . . Self-government is the 
foundation of all our political and social institutions, and 
it is by self-government alone that the law of temperance 
can be enforced. . . . Seek not to enforce upon [your 
brother] by legislative enactment that virtue which he can 
possess only by the dictate of his own conscience and the 
energy of his own will." 

1 "On Liberty," by John Stuart Mill, pp. 158-161. 



15 

Though in the discussion of no other subject is it so 
difficult to keep on the highest levels of argument, Andrew's 
plea, which occupied nearly four hours in its delivery, was 
in every way worthy of his best powers. It was solid in 
structure, it was crowded with facts, at times it was touched 
with eloquence; but its distinguishing characteristics were 
its sanity and its breadth of view. 

As Andrew had foreseen, his action in advocating the 
overthrow of a system of twelve years' standing — a system 
thoroughly congenial to the Puritan conception of law- 
shook the confidence in him of hundreds of men who here- 
tofore had been his most earnest supporters. 

• 

John A. Andrew died October 30, 1867. From the 
Boston Daily Advertiser of October 31, 1867, I quote the 
following : — 

"He is gone — the most beloved, the most trusted, the 
most fearless of Massachusetts statesmen, whose future 
seemed the most promising and brilliant and on whom 
we most depended to meet future dangers. But the man 
who guided the Commonwealth so gloriously through the 
dark era of the Civil War needs no other claim upon our 
affections and remembrance, and for that we shall ever 
look back with grateful recollection to the career of Governor 
Andrew." 

As a result of the state election held in the following week, 
which returned to the General Court a large majority in 
favor of repealing the statute that Andrew had attacked, 
a license law was passed in 1868; it was so ill drawn, how- 
ever, as to cause a reaction in favor of modified prohibition, 
and to delay the adoption of a practical license system for 
several years. 



17 



IS HISTORY ABOUT TO REPEAT ITSELF 
IN 1922? 

James M. Bugbee, writing on " Boston under the Mayors 
1822-1880" in the Memorial History of Boston, alludes to 
Mayor Norcross as follows : — 

"Mr. Norcross held the office of Mayor for only one year. 
His failure to secure the customary election for a second 
term was due perhaps to a certain stiffness of virtue which, 
in political life at least, seldom receives the reward it merits. 
His administration is chiefly to be commended for what 
it did not do. It fell upon a time when some very sensible 
people were congratulating the country on the blessing of 
being in debt and when municipal aid was sought and often 
granted for the promotion of private enterprises. A great 
number of projects involving the expenditure of millions 
of dollars were under consideration when Mr. Norcross took 
office; and had he not been a man of considerable firmness, 
one who had an intelligent idea of the scope and purpose of 
municipal government, and old-fashioned notions concern- 
ing municipal indebtedness, the City would have been 
committed to some enterprises of very doubtful expediency." 

Since Mayor Norcross' s day there have been many suc- 
cessors down to the second term of Mayor Curley : in fifty- 
five years there have been nineteen different Mayors; the 
population has grown (partly by annexation) from 178,000 
in 1867 to approximately 748,000 in 1922. 

But Boston has grown not only bigger, but better. All 
progressives believe the world is growing better, day by 
day, and Boston is no exception to this rule. If there was 
ever any stiffness of virtue left behind by Mayor Norcross, 
it never reached the chair of Mayor Curley. 

Mayor James M. Curley is a remarkable man, the idol 
of his friends and the despair of his enemies; his friends 
claim that he can be re-elected as many times as he cares 



18 

to run and are only afraid that they may lose him by an 
outside demand for him to go higher. It will never be said 
of his administration, as of Mayor Norcross's, that it is chiefly 
to be commended for what it did not do. 

The blessing of municipal indebtedness is now universally 
conceded, and the only rivalry among the big cities of the 
land is to see which can get the most of it; all acknowledge 
it is a good thing, though some of the taxpayers are begin- 
ning to wonder if one cannot get too much of a good thing. 

Although Mayor Norcross was a man of considerable 
firmness, he was terribly handicapped with his old-fashioned 
notions concerning the scope and purposes of municipal 
government — the atmosphere of his room was compara- 
tively frigid, while by contrast Mayor Curley receives all 
his friends with the glad hand ; and the warm-hearted Mayor 
Curley is likely to outshine in the success of his adminis- 
tration all his predecessors. 



What is the Boston of 1922 thinking about at the present 
time? Its papers are full of the usual amount of crime and 
calamity, sports and politics; but from Pie Alley to the 
uptown hotels, in the markets and wherever men and 
women do congregate, the one overshadowing topic of 
conversation is, Shall beer and light wines come back? 

No better exponent of what the workmen are thinking 
can be found than Samuel Gompers, President of the 
American Federation of Labor: — 

'Tn addition to the vile and poisonous substitutes for 
whiskey so largely consumed and in addition to the in- 
creased drug habit since prohibition, prohibition has made 
a nation of grouches. It has taken the joy out of the Amer- 
ican people, as can be attested by almost every social gather- 
ing. The whole scheme is unwarrantable interference with 
the personal freedom of the people, and increases dis- 
content and resentment in the knowledge that those who 
have, have it. I firmly believe that a modification of the 
Volstead Act so that beer and light wines may be manu- 



19 

factured and sold under proper regulations would solve the 
whole question rationally and helpfully." 

And what has happened to set the workmen thinking is 
more than matched on the Back Bay. It has taken the joy 
out of life, and the pleasant social gatherings at Copley- 
Plaza and uptown hotels are no longer to be found. 

Among the musicians and artists no better spokesman 
can be found than John Philip Sousa. He declares prohi- 
bition is not a farce, but a tragedy. "Before the Eighteenth 
Amendment was adopted," he says, " there were not more 
than five hundred thousand hard drinkers in the United 
States. The lawmakers should have written a law to con- 
trol this one-half of one per cent, of our population and 
left the rest of us alone." 



The Catholics have increased enormously from 1867 to 
1922, and have always had safe and sane leadership on the 
question of prohibition. Cardinal Gibbons in a calm, un- 
biassed opinion on prohibition by national enactment spoke 
in part as follows: — 

" . . . The reasons against state prohibition apply with 
even greater strength against nation prohibition. It requires 
no argument to show that the greater the distances that 
separate communities, the less will be their sympathy with, 
and their knowledge of, each other's conditions and needs. 
Then there is this further reason, a reason that is so weighty 
that it alone should nullify all talk of national prohibition: 
If the prohibitionists succeed in mustering the necessary 
strength to enact their sumptuary law, one of two things 
is going to happen in the States that have had prohibitory 
legislation forced upon them — either these States will ignore 
the unpopular law or that law will be enforced by Federal 
authority. ... 

u To enforce in the various States an unpopular sumptuary 
law by Federal authority and Federal officials, would be so 
vicious in practice, so contrary to the spirit of American 



20 



institutions, that none but the most fanatical prohibi- 
tionist could endorse it. But even such a fanatic should be 
given pause, by a little reflection on the sinister precedent 
that would be established by such an enforcement of such 
a law." 

The Congregationalists in 1922 are essentially true to form 
with those of 1867. A large per cent, were narrow-minded 
Calvinists. Their bone-dry advocates are hopelessly anti- 
quated in their ideas of personal liberty, and still dream 
of a United States dominated after the pattern of the 
Scotch Puritans. 

The Episcopalian attitude toward prohibition is emphat- 
ically shown by Bishop Eastburn's testimony given at the 
hearing of 1867, which shows the type of man he was. 
Principles meant something to him. It is inconceivable 
that he would ever have changed those which he cham- 
pioned. There was no doubt about his attitude when living, 
or of his desire to perpetuate the same after death. If one 
to-day were following the principles of Bishop Eastburn and 
were denied the possession of whiskey or brandy in the case 
of sickness or necessity and a flask of the same were offered 
by a friend and accepted, would he be as bad — really 
bad — as if he took a brick and went on Washington Street 
and smashed a plate-glass window? 

Unitarianism in 1867 was at the climax of its golden age. 
Never before or since has been seen such a galaxy of denomi- 
national stars; it was a symphony in itself, and Governor 
Andrew was its most distinguished layman. At the various 
hearings he had as witnesses the following Unitarian clergy- 
men : Rev. W. R. Alger, Rev. Dr. Hedge, Rev. Dr. Lothrop, 
and Rev. Dr. Peabody: among other prominent clergy- 
men settled in Boston at this time were James Freeman 
Clarke (Andrew's own pastor), Rufus Ellis, Chandler Rob- 
bins, Ezra S. Gannett, Edward E. Hale, and that most 
picturesque of them all, Cyrus A. Bartol. It may fairly be 
assumed that the sentiment on prohibition in the denomi- 



21 

nation was largely in accord with Governor Andrew. Fifty- 
five years have gone and the men mentioned above have 
gone with them. What the sentiment of the denomination 
is to-day is any one's guess. At the present day, perhaps 
Rev. Paul Revere Frothingham is as prominent a clergy- 
man as any, and he is of an old Boston and Unitarian family. 
His most spectacular appearance in the last few years has 
been at the State House at legislative hearings on the ques- 
tion of prohibition, and his efforts, ostensibly for war pro- 
hibition, were really with the praiseworthy design of making 
us dry two years in advance of the advent of the Eighteenth 
Constitutional Amendment, so we might get used to the 
dryness that was to come. No longer is there an atmosphere 
of Channing's " always young for liberty" around Arlington 
Street corner. There is no evidence in the public utter- 
ances of Dr. Frothingham that he ever read "The Errors 
of Prohibition," by John A. Andrew, and probably prefers 
to spend his time reading the leaflets of the Anti-Saloon 
League. 



A meeting of the Anti-Saloon League was held in 
Boston on September 18, 1922, which was reported in the 
Boston Globe of the following day: — 

Dr. Howard H. Russell, founder of the Anti-Saloon League of 
America, announced at that meeting the launching of a new law- 
and-order organization to be known as the American Bond, which 
will undertake an elaborate Nation-wide campaign to promote 
respect for law among young and old. 

"The Anti-Saloon League is going in for the enforcement of all 
laws," said he, in his first public announcement of the project before 
the Regional Conference of League Workers in Pilgrim Hall. "It 
is assured that this is the best way to lay the foundations for per- 
manent enforcement of the prohibition laws." 

S. S. Kresge is chairman of the American Bond Committee. 
In connection with this fact, it was revealed, probably for the first 



22 

time publicly, that "Big Business," through Mr. Kresge and 
15,000 business men who rallied to his appeals, brought the pres- 
sure to bear on Congress which resulted in the submission of the 
Eighteenth Amendment several years ago. 

"Mr. Kresge, who had wide business connections, had appealed 
to business men in a personal way," said Dr. Russell. "He wrote 
to them, pointing out that in cities that had gone dry, and where 
he had stores, he found that business had increased by leaps and 
bounds and that the liquor traffic was a leech on successful business. 

"There were 140,000 of these letters that went out the first time; 
they were followed by 140,000 others. 

"You will all remember how the Eighteenth Amendment was 
proposed in a Congressional resolution, passed the House and then 
came up before the Senate. There was doubt about its fate. I 
recall that the night before the eventful day 2,400 night letters 
went out to people in twelve States where it was deemed wise 
to bring the force of opinion to bear on the Senators. Next morn- 
ing there were more than nine hundred replies assuring us that the 
writers had telegraphed direct to Washington urging favorable 
action. 

MUST DISPEL DISRESPECT FOR LAW 

"Now in the same way we shall enlist the support of business 
men in an attempt to marshal the consciousness of the Nation 
and create a public sentiment for true Americanism and loyalty 
and obedience to all laws. We must dispel the specter of dis- 
respect for law and social disorder and crime held before us by the 
American Bar Association report. The Eighteenth Amendment 
is only an incident in this program. We have been appealed to 
by the authorities. 

"Mr. Kresge will write letters to these men. He will call their 
attention to the prevailing offenses against law and ask them if 
it isn't about time that they should work with him, without 
their names being published, to promote loyalty and 
obedience to the laws of the Nation. 

"Don't you think they will respond when he asks them if it 
isn't about time for them to stand together with the Constitu- 
tion and rebuke lawlessness and prevent crime, prevent strikes 
and bloodshed, such as we have just had in Herrin?" 

The American Bond will be an offshoot of the Lincoln-Lee 
Legion, the abstinence organization of the Anti-Saloon League, 
in which more than 5,000,000 school-children have taken the 



23 



pledge. But it is likely to outgrow its parent if the scope of the 
plans outlined by its founder are any criterion. 

The literature for the campaign will be printed on the league 
presses at Westerville, Ohio, he said. He read pledges and rituals 
which are to be placed before children in the public and parochial 
schools for ten years or more to come. The sympathy of the 
United States Commissioner of Education has been enlisted. 

"What we aim to do is to build up a bulwark of public respect 
for law," said he, "so that the public voice will be raised in pro- 
test against common violations of the automobile speed laws or 
any other laws. Sometime we want to have speeches of such men 
as Bryan and others broadcast by radio into the homes of millions." 

Wayne B. Wheeler, general counsel of the league and chief 
speaker at the morning session, discussed pending "dry" legisla- 
tion in Congress, but incidentally took a fling at Congressman 
George Holden Tinkham in connection with his recent attempt 
to have Congress investigate Anti-Saloon League expenditures in 
Congressman Volstead 's campaign. 

Mr. Wheeler declared that the league has always lived up to 
the Corrupt Practices act, while liquor organizations haven't, but 
suggested redrafting the law so all organizations will have to re- 
port campaign expenditures. 

Referring to the expunging of Tinkham 's remarks about Vol- 
stead from the House record, Mr. Wheeler cried: 

"HI stand up and be fired at as long as his gun has any bullets 
left in it, but when they start movements to investigate the pro- 
hibition unit and the league I want you to know what is back of it." 

Mr. Wheeler defended the proposal to vest the Secretary of 
Labor with power to deport aliens convicted of violations of the 
prohibition laws, saying that 85 per cent, of the offenders in some 
sections are aliens. 

He advocated placing the enforcement departments under Civil 
Service, to relieve agents of the embarrassment of political pull. 
He also urged acceptance by the voters of the state enforcement 
act in November. 

In connection with the latter and his statement that it is neces- 
sary to give all state police the specific duty of enforcing the dry 
laws, it was brought out from Director Potter that thirty-six en- 
forcement agents are the authorized quota for Massachusetts' 
four million people and this quota is never filled. 

Mr. Wheeler said that prohibition officers are almost in the role 
of social outcasts, that they are lonesome and realize that their 



24 



wives and families are shunned by friends. He urged dry en- 
thusiasts to befriend the agents, give them the hand of fellowship 
and invite them into their homes. 



After the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment was rati- 
fied and war prohibition was brought about, the funds from 
Big Business rapidly increased. 

The Anti-Saloon League has always played a selfish role 
since the founder, Dr. Howard H. Russell, a typical bone- 
dry prohibitionist, started it in the Middle West. It has 
posed as a veritable knight errant struggling to relieve the 
great suffering public from the slavery brought about by 
the saloon and the brewers, but the long-suffering public 
wished neither to be enslaved by the saloons of the brewers 
nor by the Anti-Saloon League. It wanted beer and light 
wines free from the Saloon. The Saloon is dead, dead as 
a door-nail, — every one knows it; but the Anti-Saloon 
League has lost its best friend. It cannot afford to bury 
the saloon as long as funds can be gathered by giving the 
impression that the saloon is alive. The abolition of the 
saloon w T as not their chief object, but to dry everybody up. 

The Anti-Saloon League is luminously described by 
John Koren in his book on "Alcohol and Society": — 

THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 

"The recent manifestations of the prohibition movement, 
particularly in its bearings upon government, cannot be thoroughly 
understood without knowing what the Anti-Saloon League stands 
for, its character, purposes, and methods. Ostensibly, it is 'a 
federation of churches and temperance societies to promote public 
morals,' and has also been described as representing a 'militant 
church movement.' This is true in the sense that it finds its 
main support within certain large Protestant denominations — 
the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and, to an extent, the 
Lutheran (chiefly the smaller English-speaking portion) — and 
naturally finds adherents within lesser church organizations. 
These great religious bodies have their strength in rural and semi- 
rural districts, whence also the prohibition movement recruits 
its force. 



25 



"On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church, the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, and the Jewish congregations, counting 
together about as many members as the others just mentioned, 
have their stronghold in the cities; but they are not identified 
with the prohibition movement as such, much less affiliated with 
the Anti-Saloon League. Indeed, their most prominent spiritual 
leaders have declared against the prohibition agitation as a reli- 
gious propaganda and stand aloof from it as a political measure. 
In all the prohibition states, except Arizona, Colorado, and Maine, 
the majority of church communicants belong chiefly to the Meth- 
odist, Baptist, and Presbyterian bodies, yet in more than half of 
all the states the Roman Catholic is the religion of the plurality, 
and in nearly one-half of all the states it has a larger membership 
than the combined denominations which are said to support the 
program of the Anti-Saloon League, but among whose members 
there assuredly are many who refuse it indorsement. Moreover, 
only two-fifths of our population are reckoned as communicants 
of any church, and only fifteen per cent of the population belong 
to the particular denominations which the Anti-Saloon League 
would claim for its own. Therefore, does it not savor of a recru- 
descent Know-Nothing spirit, when this organization presumes to 
call its propaganda an American church movement, and to speak 
in the name of the people of the United States? 

"To be sure, the Anti-Saloon League is of ecclesiastical origin; 
it was given life by a wandering Methodist preacher some twenty 
years ago; the active workers are drawn from churches; pulpits 
are its forum, and tribute is received from Sunday collections. 
In many respects, however, it seems to be singularly worldly and 
wholly undemocratic. In spite of its ramifications and ubiquitous 
agents, it is a markedly centralized body. Supreme control is 
vested in the General Superintendent. He assigns the State 
Superintendents; local or state groups have no choice in the 
matter. In brief, headquarters select, direct, and pay all of its 
officers, including the legislative superintendent at Washington, 
who conducts the campaign on Congress. 

"The Anti-Saloon League is thus a very compact, practically 
self-perpetuating, and, in a public sense, irresponsible group which 
knows no political fealty to other principles than that of prohi- 
bition, but seeks to bind all parties to its chariot. The corps of 
professional workers employed in every state is not amenable to 
local discipline or control. Its' lack of public responsibility appar- 
ently covers the expenditure of vast sums of money (one and one- 



26 



quarter millions per annum is admitted), contributed by churches, 
individuals, and corporations for political purposes, which are not 
regularly accounted for as such. It is this organization, backed 
by its own professional publications and dominating no small 
portion of the general press, that under the emblem of religion 
has obtained control of the propaganda for state and national 
prohibition.* 

* "Alcohol and Society," by John Koren, pp. 119-121. 



27 



The Anti-Saloon League proposes to invade the 
State, lander the slogan of law and order, to accom- 
plish what King George III. failed to do, place the 
rebellious little State on its knees. From now on till 
Election Day the battle will rage. 

The spirit of liberty is the birthright of every 
Bostonian. The same spirit which animated Otis, 
Adams, and Hancock, and later Andrew, still lives 
to-day widespread among Bostonians. 

One of two answers will be the response. If Yes, 
men will exclaim: "Look at Massachusetts! She is 
kneeling with the rest!" If No, Massachusetts will 
say that when the Volstead Act declares that any- 
thing one-half per cent, and over is intoxicating, it is 
a Congressional lie ! It is repugnant to the reason 
and common sense of this Commonwealth, and 
we refuse to help you enforce a Congressional lie. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 827 264 7 



